Was Senator Schumer directly responsible for the run on Indymac

Was Senator Schumer directly responsible for the run on Indymac?

The senator made public a statement saying he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co...

Which caused a run on Indymac that caused it to fail. This statement from anyone other than a congressman would be illegal, they are immune from presecution. Should he be held accountable for his statement and the subsequent loss to depositors and taxpayers (Billions).

Other Answers:

An important angle in the IndyMac failure that may get lost in ominous headlines tonight and tomorrow: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

Here's from the press release issued by IndyMac's regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: "The OTS has determined that the current institution, IndyMac Bank, is unlikely to be able to meet continued depositors’ demands in the normal course of business and is therefore in an unsafe and unsound condition. The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

Schumer's response? In an e-mail quoted by Bloomberg News, he says: "If OTS had done its job as regulator and not let IndyMac's poor and loose lending practices continue, we wouldn't be where we are today ... Instead of pointing false fingers of blame, OTS should start doing its job to prevent future IndyMacs.''

Your thoughts? Comments? Use the comment button below.
E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.
Photo Credit: www.schumer.senate.gov; Note: This replaces an earlier photo showing Sen. Schumer with his New York colleague, Sen. Hillary Clinton; many readers found the choice of the photo inappropriate.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is being blamed -- somewhat unfairly -- by federal regulators for causing the collapse of the bank IndyMac:

Pasadena-based IndyMac, with $32 billion in assets, was seized by the government Friday. The loss-ridden mortgage lender had faced an outflow of deposits since Schumer on June 26 made public a letter he sent to the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., saying he was "concerned that IndyMac's financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers."

Schumer’s decision to go public with those comments triggered a firestorm in Washington. Regulators on July 2 said he was contributing to "rumors and innuendo" about the bank that could hasten its demise.

On Friday, regulators specifically fingered Schumer for IndyMac’s failure. The Office of Thrift Supervision said in its statement announcing the seizure that "the immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued" after Schumer went public with his concerns.

"This institution failed due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said Friday. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process," a reference to Schumer.

The FDIC estimates that IndyMac’s failure will cost the agency between $4 billion and $8 billion as it unloads bad loans and makes insured depositors whole.

One should distinguish here between causing the bank’s failure and triggering it. Schumer triggered the bank’s collapse, but he did not cause it. Reckless lending caused the collapse.

Unless the housing market turns around quickly, IndyMac would almost certainly have failed in the next year, with or without Schumer’s comments. Whether Schumer saved the government money or cost the government money depends on whether IndyMac was likely to lose even more money between this month and its eventual failure later this year or early next year.

Badly run businesses go out of business, especially during slowdowns in the business cycle. And banks go out of business during very deep recessions in housing.

The regulators should be focusing instead on preventing the many bank failures yet to come (perhaps by encouraging mergers where possible).